FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The brief fact of the case is that complainant’s wife Chitra Sarkar was admitted to Zenith Hospital on 28.03.2015 for treatment owing to sudden chest pain. She was discharged from the said hospital on 04.04.2015 with the diagnosis of having coronary artery disease. Thereafter she was admitted to Central Hospital, S.E. Railway , Garden Reach ,Kolkata on 13.04.2015 represented through OP Nos 1 to 5 and was discharged on 22/04/2015 from there. The complainant submits that inspite of diagnosis of Coronary Artery Decease proper treatment was not done there even on repeated request and the patient was discharged with the saying that there was no such Cardiology Problem. Thereafter the patient was again admitted to R.N.Tagore Hospital on 27.04.2015 represented through OP No.7  and was discharged on 29/04/2015 from there with the advice to consult Coronary Angiography Specialist. The complainant  thereafter consulted with Dr. Monotosh Panja of Belle Vue Clinic represented through OP No.6 and as per advice of the doctor she was admitted there on 26.05.2015. But the condition of the patient was critical and she was in a struggling condition. Ultimately she expired on 14.06.2015 in the Belle Vue Clinic Hospital due to negligence and/or delay in treatment  The petitioner being a layman has no knowledge of medical treatment  trusted the Central Hospital, S. E. Railway and brought the patient back to home. As per submission of the complainant, the Central Hospital, S.E. Railway has no infrastructure of treatment of Cardiac attacked patient and there is no such expertise in the said hospital. Due to wrong treatment and/or negligence on the part of the Central Hospital the complainant was compelled to admit the patient in private hospital for which he had to incur huge expenses for treatment of his wife. Because of not providing proper treatment by the Central Hospital, S.E Railway and due to negligence of the hospital authority including the medical team of the said hospital the patient expired. Complaint was lodged with the competent authorities of Central Hospital, SE Railway vide letter dated 07/12/2005 but no step has been taken by the respondent authorities till date.

The complainant filed a complaint  case  before the Hon’ble SCDRC vide case No. CC/73/2016 against the OPs. The Hon’ble SCDRC vide order dated 12.03.2018  was pleased to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution  with the direction  that  this order will not debar the complainant to approach the appropriate Forum .  Accordingly,  the present case vide CC No. 265/2018 has been filed by the complainant for justice with relief/reliefs as detailed in the complaint petition.

The OP Nos. 1 to 5 has contested the case by filing W/V contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable either in law or in facts. Complainant’s wife got admitted to the Central Hospital, S.E. Railway being the OP No.2 on 13.04.2015 with the problem of chest pain and detailed investigations were done and as per investigations, proper medicines were applied and made her in stable condition. She was discharged from the hospital on 22.04.2015 with the advice of periodic check up and proper medication. Instead of coming over there she got admitted to R. N. Tagore Hospital on 27.04.2015 without giving any knowledge to the OP No.2. Thereafter she was admitted to Belle Vue Clinic and expired on 14.06.2015 i.e. after 53 days from the date of discharge from the OP 2 Hospital. Even no cause of death of said Chitra Sarkar  has been shown by the complainant. There is no observation of any Doctor or Board of Doctors as to what negligence has led to her death. Hence it cannot be said that because of deficiency in service or negligence on the

part of the OP Nos. 1 to 5 the wife of the complainant died. The OP Nos 1 to 5 further state that the Hospital is well equipped with specialist Doctors and very good infrastructure is there to treat the cardiac patients and they have tie up with R. N. Tagore Hospital in case of emergency. In view of the above the case should be dismissed against OP Nos. 1 to 5.

The OP No. 6 has also contested the case by filing their W/V wherein they have stated that nothing has been whispered against OP No. 6 being the Belle Vue Clinic Hospital in the matter of deficiency in medical service rendered to the complainant’s wife. The allegations so far understood is leveled against OP No.2. The patient got admitted to the Hospital on 26.05.2015. The condition of the patient was very critical and was struggling . Ultimately she expired on 14.06.2015. There is no specific allegation against the OP No. 6 and its specialist Doctor Monotosh Panja in the matter of medical treatment and /or delay in treatment. Moreover, there is no evidence of any medical  expert/board of medical experts to determine the deficiency in service in the matter of medical treatment. In view of the above, the case is to be dismissed against OP No. 6.

OP No. 7 has also contested the case by filing their WV wherein they have stated that the case is barred by law of limitation. In the complaint petition, it is recorded that cause of action arose on 14.06.2015 but the instant case has been filed before the Ld. Forum on 20.06.2018. According to section 24-A (1) of the CP  Act, 1986 the District Forum, the State Commission and the  National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

The patient got admitted to the hospital being the OP No. 7 on 27.04.2015 and was discharged on 29.04.2015 from the said hospital in a stable condition and was also advised to consult with coronary angiogram specialist which is evident from the discharge summary of the answering OP. After that the patient was admitted to Vele Vue Clinic and unfortunately expired on 14.06.2015. Moreover, the complainant has not furnished any evidence by which it can be proved that the death of patient has caused b due to negligence and delay treatment. Under the circumstances, the prayers of the complainants are neither tenable either in law or in the facts of the case. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

                                                Points for Determination

In the light of the above pleadings, the following  points necessarily have come up for determination.

1)  Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the Complainant?
            2)  Whether the OPs have  indulged in unfair trade practice?

           3)  Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Point Nos. 1 to 3:-

The above mentioned points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            We have travelled over the documents placed on record. The complainants and the OPs have filed their respective  evidences. Questionnaire as well as replies have also been filed by all the parties.  BNA on behalf of OP Nos. 1 to 5 and BNA on behalf of OP No. 7 have been filed.

            Facts remain that complainants wife  Chitra Sarkar was firstly admitted to Zenith Hospital where it was detected by diagnosis about coronary artery disease as per the  discharge summary. She was admitted there on 28.03.2015 and was discharged on 04.04.2015.The said hospital has not been made a necessary party in the instant complaint case and accordingly, there is no complaint against them. The patient Chitra Sarkar was brought to the Central Hospital, SE Railway, Garden Reach, 11 Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700043 being the OP No. 2 for treatment and was admitted there on  13.04.2015.  She was discharged from the said hospital on 22.04.2015 in stable condition with the advice of medication  as per the discharge summary. Afterwards, the patient was brought to the R N Tagore Hospital, E M Bye Pass,  Kolkata for treatment on 27.04.2015 and was again discharged on 29.04.2015 in stable condition and was advised  to continue medication as per discharge summary. The patient Chitra Sarkar was again admitted to Belle Vue Clinic being the OP No. 6 on 26.05.2015 and was treated over there but unfortunately, she expired on 14.06.2015 in the said hospital. While perusing the instant complaint petition we find that there is no specific allegations against the OP Nos. 6 and 7. Whatever the allegation we have understood is mainly against the OP Nos. 1 to 5. Even also  there is no evidence  of any specific allegation in the medical treatment provided by the said hospital being the OP Nos. 1 to 5. On perusal of records it is presumed that being dissatisfied with the treatment provided by the OP-2 hospital the complainant brought the patient  to R N Tagore hospital on 27.04.2015 but ultimately died on 14.06.2015 in the Belle Vue Clinic being the OP No. 6. The patient got discharged from the OP-2 hospital on 22.04.2015 and died on 14.06.2015 i.e. after 53 days from the date of discharge from the said OP-2 Hospital. So, it is quite clear that there is a long gap from the date of discharge to the date of death. There is no evidence in the form of any medical expert report  submitted by the complainant that the death is due to deficiency in medical service and or delay in treatment provided by the Central Hospital,  SE Railway, Garden Reach, Kolkata being represented by the  OP Nos. 1 to 5.. Mere allegation of having no infrastructure will not go in favour of the complainant specially in absence of any medical expert report.

            On going through the entire record and submissions made by all the parties we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish the case against all the OPs.

In the result, the consumer complaint fails.

Hence,  

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs without any cost.

    The judgment be uploaded to the website of the Commission forthwith for perusal of the parties